IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP.No.24156 of 2022 ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder, N.Senathipathi, Circle Legal head, Celestial Point, No.45, Damodharan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu.

2. Aadhanur Panchayat, Rep. by its President No.1, M.G.R. Nagar VII, Adhanur Main Road, Kundrathur Panchayat Union, Kancheepuram District- 603 202.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the notices dated 29.07.2022 and 13.08.2022 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent herein and quash the same as without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the 2^nd Respondent, their men, agent or anyone acting under them, from taking any action against the petitioner’s tower located at Plot No.2, Patta No.9709, S.No. 373 / 2D3B and 373 / 5A2, Bharathi Nagar, Adhanoor Village, near Durai Agency Kannadhasam Main Road, Adhanur, Madambakkam, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu- 603202 unilaterally and without written orders of the 1^st Respondent herein as per law.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Ravikumar For Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 29.07.2022 & 13.08.2022 directing the petitioner to remove the Cell Phone Tower.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner has installed Cell phone tower in his land, the 2^nd respondent issued notices directing the petitioner not to put up any Cell Phone tower on the basis that it is in violation and without getting approval of the District Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has initially made an application on 06.06.2022 before the 1^st respondent and obtained deemed permission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022. He would submit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4, the respondents supposed to have processed the application within a period of 60 days time i.e., on or before 05.08.2022. In the present case, since no order has been passed therefore, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2022, the petitioner obtained deemed approval. He would further submit that upon deemed approval, the petitioner proceeded to put up the cell phone tower but, without taking into consideration the deemed approval granted, the impugned notices issued by the 2^nd respondent are contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2022 and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

2^nd respondent would submit that since no approval was obtained, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notices. She would also submit that in the event any application was filed by the petitioner as contended, the respondent has not granted any approval within 60 days time, the 1^st respondent can grant deemed approval in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4.

4. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022 is extracted hereunder:

“Application Process and Deemed Clearance:

The District Nodal Officer shall, within a period not exceeding 60 calendar days from the date of application, grant permission (or) reject the application for specific reasons/deficiencies to be recorded in writing.

No application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard on the reasons/deficiencies for such rejection.

RoW permission shall be deemed to have been granted if the District Nodal Officer fails to grant permission or reject the application within 60 calendar days of the date of application.”

5. A perusal of the above, it is made clear that if any application is filed by any of the persons for the purpose of setting up cell phone tower, the concerned respondent is supposed to hav